IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18819 of 2010(B)
1. STATE CO-OPERATIVE UNION ,KERALA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :30/06/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J
...........................................
WP(C).NO.18819 OF 2010
............................................
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the
retrospective effect that has been given to a resolution passed by the
petitioner permitting promotion of its employees. The service
conditions of the employees of the petitioner are governed by Ext.P1
staff regulations which prescribes Graduation with HDC as the
qualification for promotion to the posts of Head Clerks and above. The
feeder category is that of the U.D.Clerks for which the qualification
prescribed is Graduation with JDC. There was a demand that Clerks
having only JDC and Graduation should be granted promotion to the
post of Head Clerk without insisting on the qualification of HDC.
The second respondent issued Ext.P2 order directing the grant of
promotions to such employees. Ext.P4 order was also issued amending
Ext.P1 staff regulations including JDC as an alternative qualification
for promotion to the post of Head Clerk. Pursuant to Ext.P2 order,
many U.D.Clerks were promoted as Head Clerks. However, the
Wpc 18819/2010 2
promotions were made with effect from the dates of promotion of their
juniors who had been promoted by the virtue of their superior
qualifications, earlier. This resulted in loss of seniority to some of the
employees who were possessing the qualification of HDC. Therefore,
they challenged Exts.P2 and P4 proceedings before this court and by
Ext.P5 judgment, the said proceedings to the extent it gave
retrospective effect to the promotions, was quashed.
2. According to the petitioner, as per Exts.P6 and P7 letters,
which are alleged to have been sent from the office of the petitioner,
retrospective effect has been given to the amendment that was
proposed. As per Ext.P8, retrospective effect has been given to the
amendments on the basis of Exts.P6 and P7. On coming to know of the
above anomaly, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P9 representation
before the second respondent, complaining that Exts.P6 and P7 were
not issued with their knowledge. On receipt of Ext.P9, the 2nd
respondent has to forward it to the first respondent for consideration
and disposal in accordance with law. The petitioner complains that no
action has been taken on Ext.P9 so far. Therefore, the petitioner seeks
Wpc 18819/2010 3
the issue of appropriate directions for an early action on the same.
3. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions,
submits that Ext.P9 has been received and that some communication
has already been sent to the petitioner on the said representation.
Therefore, he submits that the same would be considered and disposed
of expeditiously if it has not already been finally disposed of.
4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of
directing the second respondent to forward Ext.P9 to the first
respondent, after getting any reply or clarification that might have been
sought by the second respondent thereon, and further directing the first
respondent to consider the said representation in accordance with law
and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and
at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
lgk